From: "Josh N. Pritikin" Subject: Re: PHIL: VR is Dead, Long Live VR Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1992 01:07:52 -0500 (EST) > Perhaps a re-reading of my prose-poem would clarify things. I was talking > about the "real" reality that does and will evermore finely affect VR > participants - it is the idea of virtualness or artificialness imbued in the > very name of VR that I was questioning to the point of denial. I can > imagine If I may take a more literal point of view, it seems to me that virtual reality doesn't really exist yet. I have yet to see a real cyberspace enviornment as described by Gibson or portrayed in The Lawnmower Man. It is also fairly obvious that we wont have anything close to either of the given examples for at least a decade or two. Therefore, maybe virtual in the sense of not-quite-there is appropriate! > It's like "artificial intelligence". What is the artificial part of the > intelligence? There is none. So it was produced by man-made machines, > big deal. I have to disagree. From what I've seen to date, AI = searching or neural nets (which I have yet to see do anything general). I don't understand how these techniques could be considered intelligent in the same way we are even though they may have potential. Again, it seems the artificial part of AI is quite appropriate for now. ( Josh Pritikin jpab+@andrew.cmu.edu ( It might be hot in Pittsburgh, but at least it's humid.